Re: Phone call

Jeffrey

i spoke to the fact-checker a= the New Yorker today—my comments all concerned cancelled talk in =007 but he did say that you were mentioned elsewhere in the article*=94out in a month, he will alert me

short answer to your question—after 7 years of=continuous support, you seemed to flip, no support at all for past two yea=s nor response to requests

<=iv>

just wasted two days at Hunter College here in NYCQ=94lecturing and meeting with head of Master's program and separately C=air of Psych Department, trying to pinch-hit for someone on sabbatical

hey said they loved me but offered me "monkey mo=ey", as we call it in Jamaica, $5500/semseter—my God, Jeffrey= rent is 8 grand, i would like to eat, have a modest social life and an oc=asional psychosexual experience—i would return to Jamaica $15,000 =n debt

but i can't take Jamaica 24/7--=ill fly to London/Berlin for two weeks early June

can you name a time/date when i can reach you by phone?
=/div>

i can call you today if you like. my =ecollection is that we sat together . I thought th=t you might want to focus on transgender biology . peopl= would be interestsesd and i would fund. I am a true bei=eiver in your talents. my understanding and of course it could=be incorrect. was that honor killing work was detrimental for you. a= was the knee hip ratio in sprinters etc. . =ittle public interest where the genetics of exceptional and tr=nsgender would be helpful. I m always o f the view=that i should do no harm. and said I wouldnt give you drugs. if you asked =ecause it was bad for you. giving you money for subjects=that would be in my strong view detrimental to your future. creates = problem. you said you would get back to me and then told me that ch=pman had offered you work. In my view. =you were telling me that others would support your honor killing etc4=A0 you then asked about the markets and i said sit=tight. we can talk at anytime

many thanks for your detailed message

not quite sure why you thought Honour killing would be detr=mental

my reasoning goes way back to when i=was first working on basic theory 45 years ago and thought it was nat=ral to be attracted to anything that appeared to contradict fundamental=logic—male homosexuality was my choice then —how on ea=th could natural selection raise this clearly counter-reproductive tendenc= to —3%—recurrent mutation alone could at best get it up to 1/10,0=0

as the years rolled by, 3 things stood out: 1) =hildhood sex inappropriate behaviour was the best predictor—dolls =nstead of trucks, pink colour instead of blue, 2) the older brother effect=E24430% higher chance with each older brother and 3) discovery in 1993=of a gene or genes on the X chromosome—so you inherit the tendency=from your mother—this immediately suggested the gene might be &quo=;sex antagonistic"—bad in males but good in females. For auto=omal genes the net effect better be positive but X's are twice as freq=ent in women as in men, so the female benefit need only be greater than HA=F the cost in males to spread

sure enough, elevat=d frequency of male homosexuality is only found on maternal side—y=ur maternal uncle, your mother's male cousin—furthermore later=work showed that maternal female relatives of male homosexuals showed high=r RS than female relatives on the paternal side (since then we have discov=red a minor gene on the 8th chromosome)

David Hai= at Harvard also recently discovered a most novel genetic argument for the='older brother effect'

so when i came across Honour killings, i thought thi= is even worse than male homosexuality—how on earth does it benefi= you to slit the throat of your 17 year old daughter, whom you have invest=d 17+ years of work raising, maybe even with a little love—because=you find lipstick in her purse or phone numbers on her cell that you do no= recognise and who is also physically beautiful

i=have spent 18 months with David Haig solving this problem —includin= the factor of inheritance you stressed a while ago—i have also ma=tered the literature, both data and socio-cultural solutions, and they are=nowhere near the truth— would writing up my best version of the tru=h be 'detrimental'?—might subject me to some abuse but i c=uld not care less—this is a ghastly problem someone has to solve t=is problem in theory, might as well be me

=94-

yes i agree it is time to write up my=thoughts on transsexuality—i don't think they would take long =ut we shall see

here is my cell number you seem like you are in NY, i will be in the city on Monday and=will call you on your number if i have not heard from you in the meantime<=div>

EFTA_R1_01868250
EFTA02637529

<=div>